🚀 go-pugleaf

"Eyron" <odd1@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:7bBZa.150063$rsJ.32218@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> I am testing my S2 with studio flash run off the sync. port.
> I am using my Tamron 90/2.8 macro lense.
> My meter reading when I pop the flashes is,
> shutter speed 1/125 sec. and f stop F4.8.
> Exposure is good.
> Picts. are very sharp.
> They look great but not exactly accurate.
> Color has a slight pink cast.
> I am using daylight white bal. but I have tried auto as well.
> If I adjust in photshop it seems the picts.  it need some red and yellow
to
> get the skin tones accurate.
>
> Anyone have experience with the S2 and studio portraiture?
> Why the slight pink cast?
>
> EEO
>
>
>
What Andre said. Manual white balance only.

You can use the following for white balance:

A piece of photo paper (from a lab) unexposed and run through the processor.
It's a good clean white.

A Kodak Gray Card. (only Kodak. others don't seem to have a really true gray
color)

A set of these cards from
http://www.proofz.com

These are the ones I use and I far prefer the 65 degree one.

HTH
-- 
http://www.bobhatch.com
Our web site about RV Stuff
A work in progress

> > I am testing my S2 with studio flash run off the sync. port.
> > I am using my Tamron 90/2.8 macro lense.
> > My meter reading when I pop the flashes is,
> > shutter speed 1/125 sec. and f stop F4.8.
> > Exposure is good.
> > Picts. are very sharp.
> > They look great but not exactly accurate.
> > Color has a slight pink cast.
> > I am using daylight white bal. but I have tried auto as well.
> > If I adjust in photshop it seems the picts.  it need some red and yellow
> to
> > get the skin tones accurate.
> >
> > Anyone have experience with the S2 and studio portraiture?
> > Why the slight pink cast?
> >
> > EEO




> What Andre said. Manual white balance only.
>
> You can use the following for white balance:
>
> A piece of photo paper (from a lab) unexposed and run through the processor.
> It's a good clean white.
>
> A Kodak Gray Card. (only Kodak. others don't seem to have a really true gray
> color)
>
> A set of these cards from
> http://www.proofz.com
>
> These are the ones I use and I far prefer the 65 degree one.
>



Hi Bob,

I have a question.  How would that help when using a studio flash
setup?  That would work for floods or spots but flash?  And if it's
Studio it's probably pointed at a diffusion shield of some type.
I would /think/ the best way would be to rapid strope and record
your ballance off the umbrella surface, or pannel or whatever
is being used for diffusion.  Is this wrong?


Also Eyron,  do you have to take these through post anyway?  If
your post editing and color correction facilities are set up
professionally and your file format is deep just keep doing
the corrections there as I'm guessing you'll have to anyway.
No good?

            O :-)

"Tesselator" <Jimmmboe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bh841f$clm$1@catv02.starcat.ne.jp...
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> I have a question.  How would that help when using a studio flash
> setup?  That would work for floods or spots but flash?  And if it's
> Studio it's probably pointed at a diffusion shield of some type.
> I would /think/ the best way would be to rapid strope and record
> your ballance off the umbrella surface, or pannel or whatever
> is being used for diffusion.  Is this wrong?
>
Yes. You want to white balance according to the light hitting the subject,
same as if you were outdoors or using any other kind of light subject. The
temperature of the stobes will vary depending on brand and age of the tube,
so custom white balance is the only way to get accuracy.

You have the subject hold the card and white balance according to the
instructions for your camera.

>
> Also Eyron,  do you have to take these through post anyway?  If
> your post editing and color correction facilities are set up
> professionally and your file format is deep just keep doing
> the corrections there as I'm guessing you'll have to anyway.
> No good?
>
>             O :-)
If you custom white balance the amount of post processing for color balance
is almost zero.
-- 
http://www.bobhatch.com
Our web site about RV Stuff
A work in progress

If white balance is the only problem why not just shoot in raw and make your
white balance corrections there? Same thing as doing it on the camera.

"Bob Hatch" <bobhatch@go.com> wrote in message
news:bh8bun$ulnv3$1@ID-85448.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "Tesselator" <Jimmmboe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bh841f$clm$1@catv02.starcat.ne.jp...
> >
> > Hi Bob,
> >
> > I have a question.  How would that help when using a studio flash
> > setup?  That would work for floods or spots but flash?  And if it's
> > Studio it's probably pointed at a diffusion shield of some type.
> > I would /think/ the best way would be to rapid strope and record
> > your ballance off the umbrella surface, or pannel or whatever
> > is being used for diffusion.  Is this wrong?
> >
> Yes. You want to white balance according to the light hitting the subject,
> same as if you were outdoors or using any other kind of light subject. The
> temperature of the stobes will vary depending on brand and age of the
tube,
> so custom white balance is the only way to get accuracy.
>
> You have the subject hold the card and white balance according to the
> instructions for your camera.
>
> >
> > Also Eyron,  do you have to take these through post anyway?  If
> > your post editing and color correction facilities are set up
> > professionally and your file format is deep just keep doing
> > the corrections there as I'm guessing you'll have to anyway.
> > No good?
> >
> >             O :-)
> If you custom white balance the amount of post processing for color
balance
> is almost zero.
> --
> http://www.bobhatch.com
> Our web site about RV Stuff
> A work in progress
>
>

"McLeod" <wmcleoa910@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:wePZa.153188$hOa.3291@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> If white balance is the only problem why not just shoot in raw and make
your
> white balance corrections there? Same thing as doing it on the camera.
>
I don't understand peoples facination with wanting to "use raw" and correct
everything later. Why is it not easier to white balance once, in camera,
rather than 80 times in computer. It takes me less than 15 seconds to do a
manual white balance in camera. After that every darn image is "close" to
color perfect.

Heck, maybe you have a lot more time than I do to fiddle with images on the
screen.

-- 
http://www.bobhatch.com
Our web site about RV Stuff
A work in progress

I think your problem is not color balance or white balance but
oversaturation.

The S2 seems to saturate colors more than some of the other cameras.
Although this looks great outdoors it can look oversaturated when used
with strobes.
An oversaturated face looks red.

Set COLOR to ORG (original) and set white balance to AUTO and you will
be happy with the results.

Also in brightsunlight I like to set the TONE to ORG for maximum
detail in highlights and shadow.
Set COLOR to HIGH to add a little pop.
I then use photoshop to add contrast if needed.

Larry






On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 00:11:47 GMT, "Eyron" <odd1@rogers.com> wrote:

>I am testing my S2 with studio flash run off the sync. port.
>I am using my Tamron 90/2.8 macro lense.
>My meter reading when I pop the flashes is,
>shutter speed 1/125 sec. and f stop F4.8.
>Exposure is good.
>Picts. are very sharp.
>They look great but not exactly accurate.
>Color has a slight pink cast.
>I am using daylight white bal. but I have tried auto as well.
>If I adjust in photshop it seems the picts.  it need some red and yellow to
>get the skin tones accurate.
>
>Anyone have experience with the S2 and studio portraiture?
>Why the slight pink cast?
>
>EEO
>
>

Hey, thanks for that Bob.  Yes that makes sence (today) when I
think about it.   I didn't understand that the WB would/could
also be proformed from the exposure at strobe ignition off the
PC Sync.  For studio still shots I still do medium and large
format film.

                 O :-)



> > Hi Bob,
> >
> > I have a question.  How would that help when using a studio flash
> > setup?  That would work for floods or spots but flash?  And if it's
> > Studio it's probably pointed at a diffusion shield of some type.
> > I would /think/ the best way would be to rapid strope and record
> > your ballance off the umbrella surface, or pannel or whatever
> > is being used for diffusion.  Is this wrong?
> >
> Yes. You want to white balance according to the light hitting the subject,
> same as if you were outdoors or using any other kind of light subject. The
> temperature of the stobes will vary depending on brand and age of the tube,
> so custom white balance is the only way to get accuracy.
>
> You have the subject hold the card and white balance according to the
> instructions for your camera.
>
> >
> > Also Eyron,  do you have to take these through post anyway?  If
> > your post editing and color correction facilities are set up
> > professionally and your file format is deep just keep doing
> > the corrections there as I'm guessing you'll have to anyway.
> > No good?
> >
> >             O :-)
> If you custom white balance the amount of post processing for color balance
> is almost zero.
> -- 
> http://www.bobhatch.com
> Our web site about RV Stuff
> A work in progress
>
>

"Bob Hatch" <bobhatch@go.com> wrote in message news:bh8fpk$vq45a$1@ID-85448.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "McLeod" <wmcleoa910@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:wePZa.153188$hOa.3291@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > If white balance is the only problem why not just shoot in raw and make
> your
> > white balance corrections there? Same thing as doing it on the camera.
> >
> I don't understand peoples facination with wanting to "use raw" and correct
> everything later. Why is it not easier to white balance once, in camera,
> rather than 80 times in computer. It takes me less than 15 seconds to do a
> manual white balance in camera. After that every darn image is "close" to
> color perfect.

Hasn't it got to do with the association one makes with operations
usually done in darkroom?  Digital Darkroom work almost always has
to be proformed anyway if it's a professional shot.  I think we're
assumming that these are for professional work.  Being in a studio
w/house flash and all...


> Heck, maybe you have a lot more time than I do to fiddle with images on the
> screen.

So if it's for work then making the time to do it right is way worth
it.  And the deeper bit depths of RAW are definatly worth working with.

Interesting remark at the end.  You are opening it through the software
anyway, aren't you?  I think you probably don't understand the concept of
RAW data.


"Bob Hatch" <bobhatch@go.com> wrote in message
news:bh8fpk$vq45a$1@ID-85448.news.uni-berlin.de...> Heck, maybe you have a
lot more time than I do to fiddle with images on the
> screen.

I think he said it right:  "...more time...".  Which is true.

It takes anywhere fro 10sec to 5min to ballance a raw shot correctly.
If you let the camera do the work and then use the tiffs, assumming
your camera WB is "spot on" the time is reduced drastically; from
0sec. to 15sec. My point was that _IF_ it's a production shot you're
probably gonna wanna go in and play with the highlights, contrast,
modify or add lighting (dodge & burn), touch-up, and crop anyway
so better to use RAW from the start and no big deal on the little
bit of extra time taken to color ballance it.







"McLeod" <wmcleoa910@rogers.com> wrote in message news:5zUZa.155499$hOa.123907@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
> Interesting remark at the end.  You are opening it through the software
> anyway, aren't you?  I think you probably don't understand the concept of
> RAW data.




> "Bob Hatch" <bobhatch@go.com> wrote in message
> news:bh8fpk$vq45a$1@ID-85448.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> Heck, maybe you have a
> lot more time than I do to fiddle with images on the
> > screen.
>
>

Some digital cameras do not have a settable white balance control but only
presets for certain types of lighting. If those calibrations are off they
are screwed and have to do it after.

"Bob Hatch" <bobhatch@go.com> wrote in message
news:bh8fpk$vq45a$1@ID-85448.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "McLeod" <wmcleoa910@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:wePZa.153188$hOa.3291@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > If white balance is the only problem why not just shoot in raw and make
> your
> > white balance corrections there? Same thing as doing it on the camera.
> >
> I don't understand peoples facination with wanting to "use raw" and
correct
> everything later. Why is it not easier to white balance once, in camera,
> rather than 80 times in computer. It takes me less than 15 seconds to do a
> manual white balance in camera. After that every darn image is "close" to
> color perfect.
>
> Heck, maybe you have a lot more time than I do to fiddle with images on
the
> screen.
>
> --
> http://www.bobhatch.com
> Our web site about RV Stuff
> A work in progress
>
>

"Gymmie Bob" <NoThanx@notspam.com> wrote in message
news:8QXZa.5744$SV1.374405252@mantis.golden.net...
> Some digital cameras do not have a settable white balance control but only
> presets for certain types of lighting. If those calibrations are off they
> are screwed and have to do it after.\

But he was asking about a Fuji S2, not a WalMart Special.
-- 
http://www.bobhatch.com
Our web site about RV Stuff
A work in progress

"Bob Hatch" <bobhatch@go.com> wrote in message news:bh9ffi$u44j9$1@ID-85448.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "Gymmie Bob" <NoThanx@notspam.com> wrote in message
> news:8QXZa.5744$SV1.374405252@mantis.golden.net...
> > Some digital cameras do not have a settable white balance control but only
> > presets for certain types of lighting. If those calibrations are off they
> > are screwed and have to do it after.\
>
> But he was asking about a Fuji S2, not a WalMart Special.


LOL!

"McLeod" <wmcleoa910@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:5zUZa.155499$hOa.123907@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Interesting remark at the end.  You are opening it through the software
> anyway, aren't you?  I think you probably don't understand the concept of
> RAW data.
>
>
Ya your right. I just don't understand the complex concepts of digital.
-- 
http://www.bobhatch.com
Our web site about RV Stuff
A work in progress

Thanks guys

I will try the man. white bal.

Also in Raw mode does the camera not use the cameras set white balance?

EEO
"Eyron" <odd1@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:7bBZa.150063$rsJ.32218@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> I am testing my S2 with studio flash run off the sync. port.
> I am using my Tamron 90/2.8 macro lense.
> My meter reading when I pop the flashes is,
> shutter speed 1/125 sec. and f stop F4.8.
> Exposure is good.
> Picts. are very sharp.
> They look great but not exactly accurate.
> Color has a slight pink cast.
> I am using daylight white bal. but I have tried auto as well.
> If I adjust in photshop it seems the picts.  it need some red and yellow
to
> get the skin tones accurate.
>
> Anyone have experience with the S2 and studio portraiture?
> Why the slight pink cast?
>
> EEO
>
>
>

"Bob Hatch" <bobhatch@go.com> wrote in message news:bh9jco$100dt1$1@ID-85448.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "McLeod" <wmcleoa910@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:5zUZa.155499$hOa.123907@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > Interesting remark at the end.  You are opening it through the software
> > anyway, aren't you?  I think you probably don't understand the concept of
> > RAW data.
> >
> >
> Ya your right. I just don't understand the complex concepts of digital.
>


Hmmm...  Let's see.  I can explain it to you.  There's a ZERO and a ONE.

    Hehehehe    O :-D

I bought both my Fuji cameras at Target stores. Paying too much doesn't make
the quality better.


"Bob Hatch" <bobhatch@go.com> wrote in message
news:bh9ffi$u44j9$1@ID-85448.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "Gymmie Bob" <NoThanx@notspam.com> wrote in message
> news:8QXZa.5744$SV1.374405252@mantis.golden.net...
> > Some digital cameras do not have a settable white balance control but
only
> > presets for certain types of lighting. If those calibrations are off
they
> > are screwed and have to do it after.\
>
> But he was asking about a Fuji S2, not a WalMart Special.
> --
> http://www.bobhatch.com
> Our web site about RV Stuff
> A work in progress
>
>

"Gymmie Bob" <NoThanx@notspam.com> wrote in message
news:X8_Za.5757$882.375100527@mantis.golden.net...
> I bought both my Fuji cameras at Target stores. Paying too much doesn't
make
> the quality better.
>
>
Do you even come close to understanding the difference between an S2 and a
$300 FinePix?
-- 
http://www.bobhatch.com
Our web site about RV Stuff
A work in progress

"Tesselator" <Jimmmboe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bh9l5d$11i$1@catv02.starcat.ne.jp...
>
> "Bob Hatch" <bobhatch@go.com> wrote in message
news:bh9jco$100dt1$1@ID-85448.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > "McLeod" <wmcleoa910@rogers.com> wrote in message
> > news:5zUZa.155499$hOa.123907@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > > Interesting remark at the end.  You are opening it through the
software
> > > anyway, aren't you?  I think you probably don't understand the concept
of
> > > RAW data.
> > >
> > >
> > Ya your right. I just don't understand the complex concepts of digital.
> >
>
>
> Hmmm...  Let's see.  I can explain it to you.  There's a ZERO and a ONE.
>
>     Hehehehe    O :-D
>
That's where I screwed up. I thought it was ONE and ZERO. :-)

-- 
http://www.bobhatch.com
Our web site about RV Stuff
A work in progress

That's what I thought.


"Bob Hatch" <bobhatch@go.com> wrote in message
news:bh9jco$100dt1$1@ID-85448.news.uni-berlin.de...

> Ya your right. I just don't understand the complex concepts of digital.
> --
> http://www.bobhatch.com
> Our web site about RV Stuff
> A work in progress
>
>

"McLeod" <wmcleoa910@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:I_2_a.123485$4UE.76901@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> That's what I thought.
>
>
What is it about some who when disagreed with must insult the understanding
or intelligence of the person who disagrees with them.

I fully understand the "concept" of RAW date. I also understand the concept
of working with up to 6 clients a day with between 70 and 100 image each.
These images must be shown to each client for their selection and purchase.
To be lazy at the camera and have to spend the time to correct approximately
350 images every damn day in order to provide the client with an image that
"looks good" would be just plain stupid.

I also understand the concept of getting the best image in the camera to
start with. It's amazing the number of folks using film who will brag about
their "spot on" exposures and have no realization that the image they see on
the printed paper is the result of a darn good lab tech correcting their
screwups.

Do as you will but I will continue to expose the image correctly in the
camera because while I understand the "concept" of RAW date I also
understand the "concept" of correct exposure using either film and digital.
-- 
http://www.bobhatch.com
Our web site about RV Stuff
A work in progress

Well, Bob, I probably would have let it go if I hadn't wasted a Slice of
Time looking at your website.  I can point to more than a half dozen shots
where the exposure appears to be off.  Owning a good digital camera doesn't
necessarily make someone a good photographer.  Maybe you should learn to
spend a little more time in post processing as well.  And by the way, I have
been a professional photographer for over 17 years and I think you're
probably worth every penny you charge per image.


"Bob Hatch" <bobhatch@go.com> wrote in message
news:bhavsn$10043v$1@ID-85448.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "McLeod" <wmcleoa910@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:I_2_a.123485$4UE.76901@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > That's what I thought.
> >
> >
> What is it about some who when disagreed with must insult the
understanding
> or intelligence of the person who disagrees with them.
>
> I fully understand the "concept" of RAW date. I also understand the
concept
> of working with up to 6 clients a day with between 70 and 100 image each.
> These images must be shown to each client for their selection and
purchase.
> To be lazy at the camera and have to spend the time to correct
approximately
> 350 images every damn day in order to provide the client with an image
that
> "looks good" would be just plain stupid.
>
> I also understand the concept of getting the best image in the camera to
> start with. It's amazing the number of folks using film who will brag
about
> their "spot on" exposures and have no realization that the image they see
on
> the printed paper is the result of a darn good lab tech correcting their
> screwups.
>
> Do as you will but I will continue to expose the image correctly in the
> camera because while I understand the "concept" of RAW date I also
> understand the "concept" of correct exposure using either film and
digital.
> --
> http://www.bobhatch.com
> Our web site about RV Stuff
> A work in progress
>
>

"McLeod" <wmcleoa910@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:HQ8_a.126093$4UE.30577@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Well, Bob, I probably would have let it go if I hadn't wasted a Slice of
> Time looking at your website.  I can point to more than a half dozen shots
> where the exposure appears to be off.  Owning a good digital camera
doesn't
> necessarily make someone a good photographer.  Maybe you should learn to
> spend a little more time in post processing as well.  And by the way, I
have
> been a professional photographer for over 17 years and I think you're
> probably worth every penny you charge per image.
>
Like I said, can't disagree with out insults. Too bad.
-- 
http://www.bobhatch.com
Our web site about RV Stuff
A work in progress

Isn't the picking on his personality an insult also?

"Bob Hatch" <bobhatch@go.com> wrote in message
news:bhb73l$103to4$1@ID-85448.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "McLeod" <wmcleoa910@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:HQ8_a.126093$4UE.30577@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > Well, Bob, I probably would have let it go if I hadn't wasted a Slice of
> > Time looking at your website.  I can point to more than a half dozen
shots
> > where the exposure appears to be off.  Owning a good digital camera
> doesn't
> > necessarily make someone a good photographer.  Maybe you should learn to
> > spend a little more time in post processing as well.  And by the way, I
> have
> > been a professional photographer for over 17 years and I think you're
> > probably worth every penny you charge per image.
> >
> Like I said, can't disagree with out insults. Too bad.
> --
> http://www.bobhatch.com
> Our web site about RV Stuff
> A work in progress
>
>

Yes, the S2 has less resolution than some -and is an old partially obsolete
camera.

"Bob Hatch" <bobhatch@go.com> wrote in message
news:bh9obs$vm1pl$1@ID-85448.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "Gymmie Bob" <NoThanx@notspam.com> wrote in message
> news:X8_Za.5757$882.375100527@mantis.golden.net...
> > I bought both my Fuji cameras at Target stores. Paying too much doesn't
> make
> > the quality better.
> >
> >
> Do you even come close to understanding the difference between an S2 and a
> $300 FinePix?
> --
> http://www.bobhatch.com
> Our web site about RV Stuff
> A work in progress
>
>

Tesselator wrote:
> 
> "Bob Hatch" <bobhatch@go.com> wrote in message news:bh9jco$100dt1$1@ID-85448.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > "McLeod" <wmcleoa910@rogers.com> wrote in message
> > news:5zUZa.155499$hOa.123907@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > > Interesting remark at the end.  You are opening it through the software
> > > anyway, aren't you?  I think you probably don't understand the concept of
> > > RAW data.
> > >
> > >
> > Ya your right. I just don't understand the complex concepts of digital.
> >
> 
> Hmmm...  Let's see.  I can explain it to you.  There's a ZERO and a ONE.

talk about 2 bit explainations...


> 
>     Hehehehe    O :-D

"Gymmie Bob" <NoThanx@notspam.com> wrote in message
news:gSd_a.5793$K84.380335151@mantis.golden.net...
> Isn't the picking on his personality an insult also?
>
Where did I say anything about his personality?
-- 
http://www.bobhatch.com
Our web site about RV Stuff
A work in progress

I don't know but he did.

"Bob Hatch" <bobhatch@go.com> wrote in message
news:bhbnht$105okc$1@ID-85448.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "Gymmie Bob" <NoThanx@notspam.com> wrote in message
> news:gSd_a.5793$K84.380335151@mantis.golden.net...
> > Isn't the picking on his personality an insult also?
> >
> Where did I say anything about his personality?
> --
> http://www.bobhatch.com
> Our web site about RV Stuff
> A work in progress
>
>

WAIT

The S2 is no where near obsolete.
Its has the highest resolution and lowest noise of all the cameras  in its
price class.
Far less noise that Kodaks new 14mp camera and a lot cheaper than Canons
11mp.
It has repordedly near 9 mp of resolution and great colors.
Low noise at high ISO and firewire.
And takes all my nikon gear.

Its a great camera.
Ask anyone who uses one.

EEO
"Gymmie Bob" <NoThanx@notspam.com> wrote in message
news:%Sd_a.5794$ae4.380475425@mantis.golden.net...
> Yes, the S2 has less resolution than some -and is an old partially
obsolete
> camera.
>
> "Bob Hatch" <bobhatch@go.com> wrote in message
> news:bh9obs$vm1pl$1@ID-85448.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > "Gymmie Bob" <NoThanx@notspam.com> wrote in message
> > news:X8_Za.5757$882.375100527@mantis.golden.net...
> > > I bought both my Fuji cameras at Target stores. Paying too much
doesn't
> > make
> > > the quality better.
> > >
> > >
> > Do you even come close to understanding the difference between an S2 and
a
> > $300 FinePix?
> > --
> > http://www.bobhatch.com
> > Our web site about RV Stuff
> > A work in progress
> >
> >
>
>

  So.

To get correct color with no casts in portraiture I will either use raw mode
and adj. in PS or use Cust. white bal. set off a Kodak grey card while
firing the strobes?

Sound good???

What if I use a gold insert in the brollies(2).

Remember I am trying to get rid of the pink and add a little gold to match
the skin tones

EEO

"Eyron" <odd1@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:7bBZa.150063$rsJ.32218@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> I am testing my S2 with studio flash run off the sync. port.
> I am using my Tamron 90/2.8 macro lense.
> My meter reading when I pop the flashes is,
> shutter speed 1/125 sec. and f stop F4.8.
> Exposure is good.
> Picts. are very sharp.
> They look great but not exactly accurate.
> Color has a slight pink cast.
> I am using daylight white bal. but I have tried auto as well.
> If I adjust in photshop it seems the picts.  it need some red and yellow
to
> get the skin tones accurate.
>
> Anyone have experience with the S2 and studio portraiture?
> Why the slight pink cast?
>
> EEO
>
>
>

"Bob Crownfield" <Crownfield@Cox.net> wrote in message news:3F395E56.73B2@Cox.net...
> Tesselator wrote:
> >
> > "Bob Hatch" <bobhatch@go.com> wrote in message news:bh9jco$100dt1$1@ID-85448.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > "McLeod" <wmcleoa910@rogers.com> wrote in message
> > > news:5zUZa.155499$hOa.123907@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > > > Interesting remark at the end.  You are opening it through the software
> > > > anyway, aren't you?  I think you probably don't understand the concept of
> > > > RAW data.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Ya your right. I just don't understand the complex concepts of digital.
> > >
> >
> > Hmmm...  Let's see.  I can explain it to you.  There's a ZERO and a ONE.
>
> talk about 2 bit explainations...
>

1 bit.  2 bit would be ZERO, ONE, TWO, and THREE. Damn near CISC.  See, I knew
I could explain this stuff...

                                O :-P

"Eyron" <odd1@rogers.com> wrote in message news:8wg_a.177920$rsJ.161098@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>   So.
>
> To get correct color with no casts in portraiture I will either use raw mode
> and adj. in PS or use Cust. white bal. set off a Kodak grey card while
> firing the strobes?
>
> Sound good???
>
> What if I use a gold insert in the brollies(2).
>
> Remember I am trying to get rid of the pink and add a little gold to match
> the skin tones
>

Not sure but I think you need the inverse of gold (neg) in order to
ballance the cam for more gold in the shot.   Probably photoshop and
a printer (and some testing) could serve you.

For example if you wanted to get rid of pink then a pink card would
be used... etc.    At least I think that's right.

Gymmie Bob wrote:
> 
> Yes, the S2 has less resolution than some -and is an old partially obsolete
> camera.

low noise, 12mp, asa 1600 to 100.
what is your camera with more than 12 mp?

any digital camera is obsolete the year it comes out.
they work perfectly anyway.


> 
> "Bob Hatch" <bobhatch@go.com> wrote in message
> news:bh9obs$vm1pl$1@ID-85448.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > "Gymmie Bob" <NoThanx@notspam.com> wrote in message
> > news:X8_Za.5757$882.375100527@mantis.golden.net...
> > > I bought both my Fuji cameras at Target stores. Paying too much doesn't
> > make
> > > the quality better.
> > >
> > >
> > Do you even come close to understanding the difference between an S2 and a
> > $300 FinePix?
> > --
> > http://www.bobhatch.com
> > Our web site about RV Stuff
> > A work in progress
> >
> >

Larry Miracle wrote:
> 
> I think your problem is not color balance or white balance but
> oversaturation.
> 
> The S2 seems to saturate colors more than some of the other cameras.
> Although this looks great outdoors it can look oversaturated when used
> with strobes.
> An oversaturated face looks red.
> 
> Set COLOR to ORG (original) and set white balance to AUTO and you will
> be happy with the results.

using studio strobes and a blue seamless background?
will auto handle a color mix like that?

> 
> Also in brightsunlight I like to set the TONE to ORG for maximum
> detail in highlights and shadow.
> Set COLOR to HIGH to add a little pop.
> I then use photoshop to add contrast if needed.
> 
> Larry
> 
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 00:11:47 GMT, "Eyron" <odd1@rogers.com> wrote:
> 
> >I am testing my S2 with studio flash run off the sync. port.
> >I am using my Tamron 90/2.8 macro lense.
> >My meter reading when I pop the flashes is,
> >shutter speed 1/125 sec. and f stop F4.8.
> >Exposure is good.
> >Picts. are very sharp.
> >They look great but not exactly accurate.
> >Color has a slight pink cast.
> >I am using daylight white bal. but I have tried auto as well.
> >If I adjust in photshop it seems the picts.  it need some red and yellow to
> >get the skin tones accurate.
> >
> >Anyone have experience with the S2 and studio portraiture?
> >Why the slight pink cast?
> >
> >EEO
> >
> >

Crownfield <Crownfield@cox.net> writes:

> Gymmie Bob wrote:
> > 
> > Yes, the S2 has less resolution than some -and is an old partially obsolete
> > camera.
> 
> low noise, 12mp, asa 1600 to 100.
> what is your camera with more than 12 mp?

The S2 is a 6 megapixel camera.

> any digital camera is obsolete the year it comes out.
> they work perfectly anyway.

There's nothing clearly better in its space even now, I agree.  (The
Kodak DCS 14n is a studio camera, not general purpose; doesn't handle
low light at all well.  The Canon 1Ds is really cool but is in such a
different price class that they're not alternatives to each other.)
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, <dd-b@dd-b.net>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net>  Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera mailing lists: <dragaera.info/>